Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
depends on its degree of twist” [col. 3, lines 7-9, emphasis added].
Therefore, we find that Baur provides ample suggestion to an artisan to
adjust the twist angle to control the amount of light transmission through
the liquid crystal. Accordingly, we find that this explicit teaching by Baur
vitiates appellant’s contention that “Baur clearly teaches against using twist
angle β as the parameter to be adjusted [corrected brief, page 8].
With respect to rejections two through six (i.e., II, III, IV, V and VI as
addressed infra), we note that appellant’s arguments in the briefs are
directed entirely to the Baur reference that we have completely addressed
supra. With respect to rejections two through six, as discussed infra, we
note that arguments that appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
II. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Baur in view of Admitted Prior Art
[answer, page 7].
We note that appellant has failed to specifically traverse this rejection
or point out any alleged differences between the claims and the Admitted
Prior Art (i.e., corresponding to prior art figs. 1A and 1B of the instant
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007